The Torah portion titled Mishpatim (Hebrew for “laws”) fleshes out the “details of the
predominantly civil law that was to govern the Israelites such as laws relating
to slaves and their release, personal injures and property laws, laws of social
responsibility, justice and compassion, and laws relating to Shabbat and the
festivals. It ends with the ratification
of the covenant, and Moses ascending the mountain for forty days.” [1]

Text and Interpretation: The Case of Abortion

The issue de jour of late is the question of whether various
state laws which have recently been passed are in accord with the Constitution
of the United States. The general
consensus of opinion seems to be that these recently passed laws are a strategy
to bring before the United States Supreme Court a challenge to its precedent in
the case of Roe v. Wade which
established the right of a woman to obtain an abortion except in very limited
circumstances. Those proposing these
state laws seek to “criminalize” abortion in any form and level a criminal
penalty on those who perform them on the basis of a theology which concludes
that an unborn fetus is a legal person and an abortion of that person is
equivalent to homicide.

In a recent article in The Conversation Professor Rachel Mikva an associate professor of Jewish Studies at the Chicago Theological Seminary stated that, “there is more than one, religious view on abortion” and she then proceeds to examine the Jewish texts on the subject. Her conclusion is “that the majority of foundational Jewish texts assert that a fetus does not attain the status of personhood until birth.” “And although this passage (Exodus 21:22-25) reinforces the idea that a fetus is not yet a human life, some orthodox authorities allow abortion only when the mother’s life is at risk.”

Coincidentally in Sacks there is an essay
titled “Text and Interpretation: The Case of Abortion”. The Rabbi’s theme of the essay is summed up
in the opening paragraph:

Behind Jewish belief in Torah shebe’al Peh, the “Oral Law” lies a fundamental truth. The meaning of a text is not given by the text itself. Between a text and its meaning lies the act of interpretation – and this depends on who is interpreting, in what context, and with what beliefs.

He
goes on to say that without an authoritative tradition of interpretation there
would be chaos. This is what Professor
Mikva refers to as the halakha or
“Jewish law” which she describes as the result of “a careful reading of
biblical and rabbinic teachings.”

The
Babylonian Talmud demonstrates how this works.
A convert to Judaism went to the great sage Hillel and asked to be
converted but only to the Written but
not to the Oral Law. The great sage
made no protest. On the first day of
instruction Hillel taught him the first four letters of the Hebrew alphabet:
aleph, bet, gimmel, daled. On the next day he taught him the same letters in
reverse order: daled, gimmel, bet, and aleph.
The convert protested and said that yesterday he had been taught the
reverse. You see said the sage you have
to rely on me even to learn the alphabet.
Rely on me when it comes to the Oral Law.”[2]

As
current events clearly show the subject of abortion remains deeply
contentious. The passage cited by
Professor Mikva and also by Rabbi Sacks, Exodus 21:22-23, does not deal with
abortion per se but the consequences of injuries to a pregnant woman as a
result of a fight between two men. If
the woman is accidentally injured and caused to miscarry then the offender must
pay damages to the husband or as a court shall determine, but if the woman is
killed then there must be a life for a life.[3]

Rabbi
Sacks points out that the Hebrew word ason
is commonly translated as “fatal injury” but can also mean “mischief, evil,
harm, calamity or disaster. Jacob uses
the word when his sons tell him that Joseph then the viceroy of Egypt has
commanded them to bring Benjamin, their youngest brother, back to Egypt with
them in order to prove they are not spies. Jacob initially refuses permission
lest Benjamin should meet with disaster (ason) and it “send my white head down
to the grave in sorrow (Genesis 44:29).[4]

According
to Rabi Sacks one thing is clear from studying the Jewish sages and that is
that causing a woman to miscarry and thereby
killing the unborn foetus is not a capital offense with regard to halakha. Until birth the foetus (also
spelled fetus) does not have the legal status of a person according the sages
in the land of Israel. [5]

And
now the plot thickens as the interpretation of the word “ason” by an
Alexandrian Jew named Philo was to “play a significant part in the religious
development of the history of the West not because it had an impact on Jews but
rather on Christians.

In
commenting on the text in Exodus 21:22-23 Philo used the Septuagint version of
the Hebrew Bible which was in Greek. In
explaining the principles of Jewish law to a non-Hebrew reading public, Philo
turns to this passage from Exodus and renders it as follows:

But if anyone has a contest with a woman who is pregnant, and strikes her a blow on her belly, and she miscarry, if the child which was conceived within her is still unfashioned and unformed, he shall be punished by a fine, both for the assault which he has committed and also he has prevented nature, who was fashioning and preparing that most excellent of all creatures, a human being, from bringing him into existence. But if the child which was conceived has assumed a distinct shape in all its parts, having received all its proper connective and distinctive qualities, he shall die; for such creature as that is a man, whom he has slain while still in the workshop of nature, who had not thought it as yet a proper time to produce him to the light, but had kept him like a statue in a sculptor’s workshop, requiring nothing more than to be released and sent out into the world.[6]

Note
that the emphasis has shifted from the concern about the extent of the injury
to the third party, the woman, to an emphasis on the stage of formation of the
foetus and its potential death. Its
death, per Philo, constitutes homicide or foeticide. Philo was using the
Septuagint version of the scriptures which translates “ason” not as “calamity, but rather as “form”.

The
first Christians wrote their texts in Greek rather than Hebrew and they were
intensely dependent on the Hebrew Bible.
As the Gnostic Marcion discovered the Church denounced any attempt to
remove Christianity completely from the Hebrew Bible as heresy. And, because of
the heavy influence of the Greek the early Christian teaching on abortion
followed Philo rather than the sages of Israel.
Augustine stated that the key distinction was between embryo informatus and embryo formatus – an unformed and formed
foetus. [7] If a
foetus was formed [8]
then causing its death was murder. This
was the rule taught by Tertullian[9] in the
second century which remained so until Pope Sixtus V decreed that abortion at
any stage was murder.[10] His decree was vacated by Gregory XIV in 1866[11] but
then reinstated by Pius IX in 1869.[12]

As
both Professor Mikva and Rabbi Sacks conclude while in Jewish law a foetus may
not be regarded as a “person” it is a potential person and must be
protected. But the difference between
Judaism and Roman Catholic and Fundamentalist Christian theology is that in
Judaism abortion is not murder whereas in Catholicism and Fundamentalism it is.

Rabbi
Sacks noted that the difference in theological positions has arisen because of the
interpretation of a single word, ason. [13]He notes further that “without tradition, and all the sages meant by “the
Oral Law” we would simply not know what a verse means. Between a text and its meaning stands the act
of interpretation. Without rules to
guide us – rules handed down across the generations – we would be in the same
position as Hillel’s student, unable even to begin. [14]

.

[1]
Jonathan Sacks, Exodus: The Book of Redemption, Maggid Books
(Jerusalem 2010). This blog entry follows the form and ideas of Rabbi Sacks essay with some
additions and commentary. It is not
meant as an authoritative commentary or the product of original research. All due credit must go to Rabbi Sacks, and to
Professor Rachel Mikva whose comments are used under a license through creative
commons. .

[4]
Ibid, page 169, note 3 states that “ The word appears three times in the
Jacob-Joseph-Benjamin story (Genesis 42:4, 42:38, 44:29) and twice in the
present context (Exodus 21:22,23). These are the only occurrences in the Hebrew
Bible.

[9]
Sacks, note 10 page 171: Tertullian, Treatise on the Soul XXXVII: “On the Formation and State of the
Embryo.” On the history of Christian attitudes to abortion, see E. Westermarck,
The Origin and Development of the Moral
Ideas (London: Macmillan, 1906). Some scholars disagree and argue that
Tertullian taught that all abortion at whatever stage was murder.

[13] Some sources indicate that there was much more to this than the Septuagint translation of ason . While Catholic bishops claim that the condemnation of all abortion started from the beginning of the Church that position has been refuted by a number of scholars according to some sources. However, the same sources indicate that the earliest Church legislation condemned abortion in all forms, There is a divergence of opinion on this issue. See Wikipedia contributors, “Catholic Church and abortion,” Wikipedia, The Free encyclopedia,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church_and_abortion&oldid=898184309

Let my prayer be set forth in your sight as incense, the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice. Psalm 141: 2 (Opening Sentence for the Evening Prayer Office in the Book of Common Prayer)

Whose Footsteps Do We Follow When We Pray?

One afternoon during my tenure as the
coordinator for the Daily Offices at our Cathedral I received a telephone call
from the Dean’s secretary informing me that there were people waiting in the
chapel for Evening Prayer and the assigned officiant had not arrived. She asked if I would come and lead the
service which I did. In discussing this
with a priest friend I realized that in our parish and probably in the whole of
the Episcopal Church services are not considered quite right or even valid
unless they are led by an officiant either clerical or lay.

The above phrase is the title chosen by Rabbi Sacks[2]
for the next topic in his discussion of the readings from the Parasha of
Tetzaveh. He begins the discussion by saying that the different roles of
priests and prophets represent two different ways of being, two distinct modes
of consciousness.

A key question in studying Jewish
spirituality is “what is the nature of worship in Judaism?” Does the duty to pray derive from a Biblical
command, or from a rabbinic tradition which replaced the ritual sacrifices of
the Tabernacle and the Temple with prayers? And, is there an obligation to pray
levied upon each individual or is the obligation a communal responsibility which
may be fulfilled by a leader?

During the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries two of Judaism’s greatest sages, Maimonides and Nahmanidies debated
these questions. To them it was an
important issue which had far reaching implications in understanding the nature
of Jewish spirituality.

Maimonides in his Sefer Ha Mitzvot[3],
regarded prayer as a one of the 613 biblical commands[4]
of positive duties citing passages in Exodus 23:25 (“And you shall serve the
Lord your God”) and Deuteronomy 11:13 (And to serve him with all your heart)
interpreting “service of the heart” to mean prayer. According to rabbi
Maimonides “…every person should daily, according to his ability, offer up
supplication and prayer.”

Nahmonides argues to the contrary that prayer is to be regarded as rabbinic,
not biblical. And when people prayed during the biblical era they did not do so
because they had a duty to do so but rather because they “knew that God, in his
kindness, listens to prayer and that prayer was a privilege not an
obligation.” As for the command to serve
him with all your heart, it simply means we should “be wholehearted in our
service to God”. And, the primary
service to God during the biblical era was the offering of sacrifices at the
altar. The institution of prayer as a “religious obligation” was post-biblical.

The “middle case” in the debate is stated by one R. Yose son of R. Hanina
who attributes the beginning of the prayers: morning, afternoon, and evening, as
having been instituted by the patriarchs and “instituted to replace the daily
sacrifices.” Morning Prayer was
established by Abraham who got up early and went to the place “where he had
stood”. Afternoon prayer was instituted
by Isaac who “went out to the field towards evening”. And, Evening Prayer was instituted by Jacob
as he had received a vision at night of a ladder descending from earth to have
angels ascending and descending”. [5]

These prayers correspond to the daily sacrifices: the morning and
afternoon prayers represent the morning and afternoon offerings. The evening
prayer mirrors the completion of the sacrificial process (the burning of the
limbs) which was done at night.[6]

Priests and Prophets -Again

The debate about the nature of prayer
is, according to Rabbi Sacks, reminiscent of the different ways in which
priests and prophets approached God.

The prophets prayed sua sponte that is on their own accord
or spontaneously and used words. They
approached God directly and their prayer arose out of the situation of the
moment. Examples would include Abraham’s prayer for Sodom and Gomorrah; Jacob’s
prayer before his encounter with Esau; Moses prayer asking God to forgive the
Israelites after the golden calf; and Hannah’s prayer for a child. No two such
prayers are alike.

Contrast this with the practice of the
priests. With them what was primary was
the sacrifice, not the words. Even
though the Levites sang some songs in the Temple worship for the most part
priestly worship took place in silence. Actions were precisely regulated and
any deviation such as the spontaneous offering of incense by Aaron’s two sons,
Nadav and Avihu, was fraught with danger.[7]
A priest was to do “the same thing, in the same place, at the same time,
following a daily, weekly, monthly and yearly cycle”.[8]

The rabbi sages do not disagree that
the priest and the prophets approached prayer differently, but they ask: which approach are we to follow today? To which tradition does prayer rightfully
belong? And, in Judaism the answer is that both traditions are followed in practice. The individual congregants pray once
silently, and then again out loud thereby blending the two traditions. This bifurcated process is followed in the morning
and afternoon prayers but not in the evening prayers as there were no
sacrifices in the evening only the burning of the remains.

Fixed Prayer and Spontaneous Prayer

Another priest friend once told me a story about a Christian unity
conference he attended which was also attended by clergy of the Baptist,
Methodist, Lutheran, and Roman Catholic traditions. It was his turn to offer the prayer for the
group and the Baptist minster, who was a good friend of his, joked “o.k. go
ahead and give us one of those “canned prayers” you folks like so much” to which
the padre responded with a recitation of the Lord’s Prayer. The idea of fixed prayers as in the Book of Common Prayer are viewed with
suspicion by members of some other Christian traditions as they feel that the
reading of a written or fixed prayer is somehow not a genuine prayer.

In Judaism a rabbi named Eliezer made the statement that “if a person
makes his prayer fixed (Hebrew, keva)
then it is not a genuine prayer.”[9] Later interpreters of this statement say that
he was not speaking of the words we say but the way we say them, and we should
not “regard prayer as a burden or read it like one reads a letter.” Others
interpret his statement as meaning that we should say a new prayer every day or
introduce something new into the eighteen blessings. [10]

There is also a disagreement concerning the obligation of each individual
as opposed to the community with regard to prayer. One side of the argument from an anonymous
source holds that as the leader of the prayer is obligated to recite the prayer
so each individual is obligated.
However, Rabbi Gamliel holds that: “The leader of prayer exempts the
individual members of the congregation.”

The common thread in all these disagreements is “a profound difference of
opinion as to which tradition of prayer is primary: priestly or prophetic. The priests offered
sacrifices on behalf of the whole community whereas the “patriarchs and the
prophets spoke as individuals, spontaneously as the circumstances required.”

Maimonides and Nahmanidies disagree concerning the nature of the
obligation to pray. And, not only do
they disagree about the obligation but about the nature of prayer itself

For Maimonides prayer is a biblical obligation as the patriarchs and the
prophets spoke directly to God each in their own way and spontaneously.[11]
For him the heart of prayer is the
prophetic experience of the individual in conversation with God.

Nahmanides argues that the patriarchs did not set a binding precedent.[12] They spoke to God as they were moved to do so
and not because there was an obligation to pray. He argues that the primary
form of worship during the biblical era was the sacrifices offered by the
priests, first in the Tabernacle and then in the Temple. Prayer replaced the sacrifices only after the
destruction of the Temple and there was no longer a functioning
priesthood. It was therefore a rabbinic
and not a biblical obligation. He further argues that prayer is the collective
worship of the Jewish people “a continuation of the pattern set by the Temple
service.

In the whole of Jewish history there have been two forms of avoda (service to God): the priestly and the prophetic.[13]
During the biblical era they existed side by side but after the Hebrew Bible
reached closure and the Temple was destroyed prayer became the “single form” of
communication between heaven and earth. The rabbis were then divided on the
genealogy of prayer. Is it like a
sacrifice or the heartfelt pleas of the prophets? The conflict was resolved by
combining the two forms as was mentioned earlier. Thus, the worshippers say the
prayer silently and then out loud in response to a leader. Thereby giving deference to both prayer
methods handed down through the ages.

Returning to the story about the parishioners “waiting” for an officiant
to arrive perhaps we can see in that traces of the priestly tradition of prayer
and the argument of Rabbi Gamliel who insisted on a fixed text and promoted the
idea that the leader of prayer is “like a priest” whose leadership exempts the individual
members of the congregation from their duty to pray.[14]
While the Book of Common Prayer seeks
to balance the two historical approaches to prayer, as in Judaism, the notion
that there must be an “officiant” leading the community in order for the prayer
to be valid seemingly remains with us.

NOTES:

[1] This blog entry represents the second in a series which are meant to chronicle a study of the Old Testament books through a Judaic lens so as to more fully understand the interrelation of Judaic customs and practices on New Testament writings. The ideas expressed here originate with Rabbi Jonathan Sacks in his book Exodus: The Book of Redemption.

[2]
All quoted material is from Sacks, Exodus:
The Book of Redemption, pages 225-231. All credits belong to Rabbi Sacks.

[4]
Rabbinic tradition has it that 613
commandments were given to Moses on Mount Sinai, but it does not
specify those included in the enumeration. Maimonidesmethodically and artfully crafts a list of 613 commandments in a work that
serves as a prolegemenon to the Mishneh Torah, his monumental code of law. (Prolegemenon
from the ancient Greek neuter noun: προλεγόμενον (prolegómenon, “that which is said beforehand,”)

[7]
The Making of a Strange Fire. On the
eighth day of the opening of the Tabernacle Aaron’s sons Nadav and Abihu took
their thuribles and offered incense even though it had not been requested or
commanded by God. As a result, they were
consumed by flame. The meaning of the
story has been debated for centuries. But
the moral is summed up in a sermon by Bishop Edward Salmon in a sermon to a Nashotah
House graduating class: “Be careful when
handling holy things”.

[10]
The Eighteen Blessings: The Amidah (Hebrew: תפילת העמידה, Tefilat HaAmidah, “The
Standing Prayer”), also called the Shemoneh Esreh (שמנה עשרה), is the central prayer of the Jewish
liturgy. Observant Jews recite the Amidah at each of three prayer
services in a typical weekday: morning, afternoon, and evening. The
typical weekday Amidah actually consists of nineteen blessings, though it
originally had eighteen (hence the alternative name Shemoneh Esreh,
meaning “Eighteen”). The prayer is recited standing with feet
firmly together, and preferably while facing Jerusalem.

It is intended that this writing be one
in a series which chronicles a study of the books of the Old Testament from a Judaic
perspective. Presently my study is being guided by a text written by Rabbi Lord
Jonathan Sacks which examines various readings from the Book of Exodus through
a series of essays.[1] This paper is meant to be in the nature of a
report designed to outline my progress in this course of reading. It is not meant to be a report on original
research but rather a summary of the findings of others much more qualified than
I.

Some years ago I read Biblical
Literalism: A Gentile Heresy by Bishop John Shelby Spong.[2] In that book Bishop Spong’s premise is that
the New Testament scriptures emerged from a Jewish community and that they must
be read along with an intimate knowledge of Jewish culture, Jewish symbols,
Jewish icons and the tradition of Jewish storytelling along with an
understanding of what the Jews call “midrash”. [3]

At the same time as reading Bishop Spong’s book I was guided by a
clergy friend to a new translation of the Pentateuch[4]
made by Professor Everett Fox titled The
Five Books of Moses. Professor Fox
explains in his preface that one of the main reasons for his translation is to
cause the reader to “encounter a text which challenges him or her to rethink
what these ancient books are and what they mean …and become an active listener
rather than a passive receiver.” He goes
on to say his translation is guided by “…the principle that the Hebrew Bible,
like much of the literature of antiquity, was meant to be read aloud, and that
consequently it must be translated with careful attention to rhythm and sound.”
That thought seems to reflect the
notion that Bible reading is akin to playing music or reciting poetry. And, in
my role as a leader of the Daily Offices at my Cathedral I was able to literally see and hear the scripture
as if it were music being played which conveyed a deep underlying meaning in
addition to its literal reading. The
reading of the scripture aloud on a daily basis brought out what a musician
would call the “inner voices”. Another
way to put it is that the sum of the parts was less than the whole. There was something coming through that oral
reading that was lost in the mere recitation of the literal text in one’s mind.

The same cleric friend who introduced me to Professor Fox also
introduced me to Rabbi Lord Sacks. We
have been reading his book [5]
and discussing it chapter by chapter each week.
In our discussions we find ourselves relating what we learn from Rabbi
Sacks and Professor Fox to our understanding of New Testament thought. The depth of the New Testament readings has
increased immeasurably by our ventures into the Jewish world of the Torah. Many of the stories relating to Yeshua bar Joseph
(Jesus) which seemed inconsequential in past
readings have now taken on new meaning and depth because of the newly acquired knowledge
about Jewish history and culture, particularly the culture of the Temple.

The Structure of the Book and An Introduction to the Jewish Parasha

In the liturgical Christian churches
such as the Anglican, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran and others we read the
scriptures throughout the year according to a lectionary which is a list of
readings deigned to be read during the Daily Office and at the Eucharistic celebration
during the Mass.

In Judaism the annual cycle of
readings is known as the parasha, in Hebrew, פָּרָשָׁה Pārāšâ, meaning
portion. It formally means a section of
a biblical book in the Masoretic[6]
text of the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible). The Tanakh is traditionally divided into
Torah, or teaching, the five books of Moses, Nev’im, the prophets, and Ketuvim,
the writings. In the Masoretic text
parashah sections are designated by various types of spacing between them, as
found in Torah scrolls, scrolls of the books of Nev’im or Ketuvim, masoretic
codices from the Middle Ages and printed editions of the masoretic text. The division of the text into parashot for
the biblical books is independent of chapter and verse numbers, which are
not part of the masoretic tradition. Parashot are not
numbered, but some have special names.[7]

Rabbi Lord Sacks has taken these special names and used them like
chapter designations. Thus he covers the Parashat utilizing their Hebrew names:
Shemot, Va’era, Bo, Beshallah, Yitro
(Jethro), Mishpatim, Teruma, Tetzaveh, Ki Tissa Vayak-Hel and Pekudei. Each parasha is divided into four essays
which cover the main points of the scripture set out in the parasha.

For purposes of this writing we will discuss the parasha Tetzaveh which
in Hebrew means “You command”. This
phrase makes up the first words of the mandated scripture reading which is from
Chapter 27 of the Book of Exodus starting at the 20th verse. Tetzaveh
is usually read during the month of Adar in the Hebraic calendar which roughly
corresponds to the month of March in the Gregorian calendar.

A helpful beginning would be a recitation of verses from the passage which
begins as follows:

You
shall further command the Israelites to bring you pure oil of beaten olives for
the light, so that a lamp may be set up to burn regularly. . .

Introduction to the Jewish Parasha

Rabbi Sacks summarizes
the substance of this parasha as follows:

In Tetzaveh,
the role of the priests in the service of the Tabernacle takes center
stage. Moses moves to the background in
these readings and his brother Aaron is highlighted as the key figure as he
becomes the High Priest. We will be
studying the tasks of the priesthood, their robes of office and their consecration,
as well as further details about the Tabernacle itself.

…the
essays that follow look at what made priests different from other kinds of
religious leader, especially the prophet.
The first looks at the priest as the as a symbol of constancy and
continuity in Jewish life. The second
looks at the parts priest and prophet played in the development of Jewish
prayer. The third analyzes the
relationship between Moses the prophet and Aaron the priest, and the last act
in the five-part story about brothers that began in Genesis. The fourth essay looks at the idea of robes
of office and their place in Judaism and other cultures. [8]

Priests and Prophets

Our study begins with a question. Why is it that the greatest leader and
prophet of the Hebrew people (Moses) is absent from mention in this set of
readings? Our text offers three
explanations.

First, it cites the Vilna Gaon[9]
to say that because the time prescribed for reading this portion of scripture usually
falls during the week which includes the seventh day of Adar[10],
the day of Moses death, his absence from the text is a way of expressing this
loss.

Second, some argue that the commentary of Ba’al Ha Turim (Rabbi Jacob
ben Asher, 1270-1340) relates it to the plea of Moses found in Exodus 32:32 in which
he begs God to forgive the Israelites sin in their having made and worshipped
the golden calf. He basically says that
if you do not forgive them then “blot me out of the book you have
written”. Therefore Moses absence from
these passages is explained by the old adage that “The curse of a sage comes
true, even if it was conditional and the condition has not been satisfied”. [11]

And third, some say that the Paneah
Raza compiled by R. Isaac ben Judah Halevi takes the position that the reason
has to do with the intense anger of God at Moses for continuing to refuse to
take up God’s call to lead the Jewish people out of Egypt. After Moses plea in which he asks God to
“please send someone else, God tells him that his brother Aaron would accompany
him. In his stubborn refusal to “step up” Moses thereby forfeited the role of
becoming the first of Israel’s priests which then fell to Aaron, his brother, and
therefore this is the reason he is missing from this Parashat.

Religious Leadership in Judaism

In Judaism two forms of religious
leadership are recognized: the navi
and the kohen, the prophet and the
priest. The greatest of the prophets is considered to be Moses. The prophets
such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, etc. were known as persons of drama. In the words of Rabbi Abraham Heschel:

The prophet is an iconoclast, challenging the
apparently holy, revered, and awesome. Beliefs cherished as certainties,
institutions endowed with supreme sanctity, he exposes as scandalous
pretensions. [12]

The priests were quieter, a political, serving in the Sanctuary rather
than the public eye. But their role was
no less important than the prophets in sustaining Israel as a holy nation.

Each group developed its own approach to communicating with the divine
and as a result each developed its own unique “culture” which served to further
define it.

There were rules of kavod (honor) due to a Kohen. There are no corresponding rules for
honor due to a prophet. A prophet is
honored by being listened to, not by formal protocols of respect.

The priests were removed from the people.
They served in the Temple. They were not
allowed to become defiled. There were
restrictions on whom they might marry.
The prophets, by contrast, were usually part of the people. They might be shepherds like Moses or Amos,
or farmers like Elisha. Until the word
or vision came, there was nothing special in their work or social class.

The priest offered up sacrifices in silence.
The prophet served God through the spoken word.

They lived in two different modes of
time. The priest functioned in cyclical
time- the day (or week or month) that is like yesterday or tomorrow. The
prophet lived in covenantal (sometimes inaccurately called linear) time – the
today that is radically unlike yesterday or tomorrow.[15]

The service of the priest never changed; that
of the prophet was constantly changing. Another way of putting this is to say
the priest worked to sanctify nature, the prophet to respond to history.

The differential between
priest and prophet becomes even more pronounced upon examination of the key
words used to describe each group.[16]
For the koen the key words were kodesh and hol, tahor and tamei;
sacred and secular, pure and impure. The key words in the vocabulary of the
prophets are tzedek and mishpat, hesed and sahamim;
righteousness and justice, kindness and compassion. The key verbs of the koen
are lehorot and lehavdil, to instruct and to distinguish. The key activity of the prophet is to
proclaim “the word of the Lord.” The distinction between priestly and prophetic
consciousness (torat kohanim and torat nevi’im) is fundamental to
Judaism, and I would argue, to Christianity also. The distinction is reflected
in the differences between law and narrative

The priest speaks the word of God for all time while the prophet speaks
the word of God for his time. The great Hillel[17]
stated the famous dictum “What is hateful to you do not do to others. The rest
is commentary: go and learn.” [18] This set up a debate among the sages as to
the most important thing: sacrifice,
faith, or ethics. One sage Ben Zoma
argues that there is an all more embracing verse, namely “Hear O Israel
(Deuteronomy 6:4) [19]. While Ben Nannas argues that there is a more
embracing verse still, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus
19:18.) And, Ben Pazzi argues “there is a more embracing verse still: “Prepare one lamb in the morning and the
other towards evening” (Numbers 28:4).[20] In response a Rabbi attending the debate
stood up and declared “the law is in accordance with Ben Pazzi.”.

Ben Pazzi says Rabbi Lord Sacks is making the fundamental assertion
that without the daily service to God, there would be neither Jewish faith nor
Jewish ethics.[21] And, the same could be said for Christian
faith and Christian ethics. And, as we
will see in future essays the sacrifices turn into prayer offices after the
destruction of the Temple. Thus, the sages argue for the practice of morning
and evening prayer, daily.

The Jewish sages have over the course
of time debated the nature and proper practice of prayer and whether prayer is in
effect a substitute for the sacrifices of the priests of ancient Israel or more
like the heartfelt pleas of the prophets. In other words must prayer be formal and
communal, or individual and spontaneous?

According to Rabbi Lord Sacks[22]
in modern Judaic practice each prayer is said twice, except the evening prayer.
The prayer is said silently as individuals and then out loud as a
community. This practice has become so
ingrained that it is done without hesitation and almost without notice. The explanation is simple. The first recitation is prophetic and the
second priestly. The prayers are recited
informally and personally, then formally and communally. [23] The liturgical heritage of Judaism and its influence on developing Israel into a “holy” nation is thus re
asserted each time the prayers are made.
This is much akin to the Eucharistic celebration during the Mass.

Conclusion

In this part of parasha Tetzaveh
Moses steps back and Aaron moves to the fore.
Aaron assumes the role of high priest, the priesthood and the role of
the priests thereby take center stage. The role of the priest and the prophet
are different yet complimentary in that both are necessary to sustain Israel in
its unique role as a “holy nation”. “For
whereas Moses lit the fire in the souls of the Jewish people, Aaron tended the
flame and turned it into “an eternal light.” ”[24]

Notes:

[1] Jonathan Sacks, Covenant and Conversation Exodus: The Book of Redemption published by Maggid Books, Jerusalem in 2010.

[2] Spong,
Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy,
New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2016. The Jewish
Encyclopedia defines Midrash as follows: the term “midrash” designates
an exegesis which, going more deeply than the mere literal sense, attempts to
penetrate into the spirit of the Scriptures, …

[6] The
Masoretic Text (MT or 𝕸) is the authoritative
Hebrew and Aramaic text of the 24 books of Tanakh for Rabbinic Judaism. It is
not the original text (Urtext) of the Hebrew Bible: Urtext has never been
found. It was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known
as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries of the Common Era (CE).

[10]Adar (Hebrew:
אֲדָר Adar;
from Akkadian adaru) is the sixth month of the civil year and the twelfth month
of the ecclesiastical year on the Hebrew calendar, roughly corresponding to the
month of March in the Gregorian calendar.

[14][14]
Sacks notes that this is why there were prophetesses but no priestesses: this
corresponds to the difference between formal office and personal authority.
Citing R. Elliyahu Bashi-Doron, Responsa
Binyan Av 1:65.

[15]Covenantal Time. Heschel, at page 26, explains this concept by
saying that the prophet participates in the divine pathos. “An analysis of prophetic utterances shows
that the fundamental experience of the prophet is a fellowship with the
feelings of God, a sympathy with divine
pathos and a communion with the divine consciousness which comes about through
the prophet’s reflection of, or participation in, the divine pathos. The typical prophetic state of mind is one of
being taken up into the heart of the divine pathos; sympathy is the prophet’s
answer to inspiration, correlative to revelation. See also the Appendix at Heschel p.489 titled
: “A Note on the Meaning of Pathos” which contains the statement that “Pathos …
means that which happens to a person or thing; what one has experienced, good
or bad; emotion, passion; state, condition. In general, the ancient classical
idea of pathos included all conditions of feeling and will in which man is
dependent on the outer world.”

[20][20]
Thus the connection with verse 2 of Psalm 141 and its reference to the “evening
sacrifice.” Here the interpreters of the
scripture are specifying daily morning and evening sacrifices which in time
become daily and morning prayer after the destruction of the Temple. An opening
sentence of the evening prayer office in the Book of Common Prayer says: “Let my prayer be set forth in thy
sight as incense, and let the lifting up of my hands be an evening sacrifice”
B.C.P. page 61 .

At their heart Judaism and Christianity are “mystical” religions. They have created a framework composed of iconography and metaphor to house the mysticism inside. That mysticism requires our careful thought and study to accomplish the “revelation” of its truths . That study works best when the student becomes actively involved as in prayer and iconographic study. We all too often fall victim of the old maxim of not seeing the forest for the trees and become fixated on intricate details which only serve to block, not reveal, the truths which lie within the outward structures.

The painting shown above by Ilya Repin came to my attention through the good offices of the clergy and staff of Saint Augustine’s Church in Oakcliff, Texas when it appeared in a Facebook announcement concerning upcoming Sunday services. The scripture and sermon obviously geared to an upcoming exhortation concerning the temptation of Christ as it relates to our everyday lives It is in my opinion a true icon pointing us to one of those mystical truths often overlooked.

Repin was the most famous Russian artist of his day and began his studies in military school. His father was a soldier in the Russian Army and he was slated to follow in his footsteps. Bur alas he began to study art and found a new path for his life. His initial work involves the restoration of religious paintings.

“Follow me, Satan” presents temptation as a subtlety . Satan is portrayed as a phasm-like figure in red with his fallen angels wings clearly visible reminding us of his fall from grace. He stands behind a contemplative and perplexed looking Jesus whose expression suggests that he is enduring some discomfort of mind as the proposed “temptations” are subtly and craftily presented. The mist covering the ground beneath Satan and Jesus suggests that temptation presents itself stealthily and subtly in our lives without clearly defined boundaries which would normally give us warning that we are straying into the quicksand of destruction.

As I contemplate this icon I find it to be a sign whose form directly reflects the thing it signifies. We all face temptations and usually is such subtle ways we fail to recognize them before they have a chance to work their destructive power. A recommended prescription is prayer and the study of iconography as a way of finding those truths which are actually worthy of our embrace.

In closing I offer you the word of the Ash Wednesday liturgy from the Book of Common Prayer: “I invite you, therefore, in the name of the Church to the observance of a holy Lent, by self examination and repentance; by prayer, fasting, and self denial; by reading and meditating on God’s holy word. …”

This week in Covenant and Conversation we completed the section of Rabbi Sacks book concerning the parasha (readings) of Yitro (Jethro) which covers Exodus 1:20 to 20:23 . We will begin the parasha of Mishpatim next Thursday which covers Exodus 21:1 to 24:18.

In the words of Rabbi Sacks:

Following the revelation at Mount Sinai, Mishpatim fleshes out the details of the predominantly civil law that was to govern the Israelites: laws relating to slaves and their release, personal injuries and property laws, laws of social responsibility, justice and compassion, and laws relating to Shabbat (Sabbath) and the festivals. It ends with a ratification of the covenant, and Moses ascending the mountain for forty days.

In the essays that follow, the first examines the law about helping an enemy, and the social [psychology that underlies it. The second look at two interpretations of a passage that would eventually lead to divergent Jewish and Christian approaches to abortion. The third is about the contrast between simplicity of the Ten Commandments and the complexity and detail of the laws of Mishpatim. Why does the Torah (the Five Books of Moses) use both methodologies? The fourth is about one of the most challenging and distinctive of all biblical imperatives: the command to love the stranger.

Our studies are based on a text by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks titled Exodus: The Book of Redemption, Maggid Books (2010). In addition scriptural passages are read from The Five Books of Moses, by Everett Fox, Shocken Books, Inc. , New York (1997) a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Covenant and Conversation meets each Thursday at nine o’clock in the library of Trinity Episcopal Cathedral, Columbia, South Carolina. Generally we meet for one hour. All are welcome to join us.

A group has formed at Trinity Cathedral Parish (Trinity Episcopal Cathedral) in Columbia, South Carolina to study the relationship between the Hebrew Scriptures specifically the Torah or Five Books of Moses and the Christian Old and New Testaments. The group is called Covenant and Conversation. It meets on Thursday mornings at nine o’clock a.m. to ten o’clock a.m. in the Cathedral Library.

Currently we are reading Exodus: The Book of Redemption by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks (Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregation of the British Commonwealth) supplemented with readings from The Five Books of Moses, a translation of the Torah by Dr. Everett Fox, Professor of Judaic and Biblical Studies at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts.

Our purpose is expressed best in the words of Professor Fox himself:

The purpose of this work is to draw the reader into the world of the Hebrew Bible through the power of its language.

Fox, The Five Books of Moses, Translators Preface p ix

In entering the world of the Hebrew Bible we hope to gain a greater understanding of the world from which Jesus came and the influence which it had on his ministry as well as why his ministry was perceived by the religious authorities to be such a radical departure from traditional Judaic thought when in fact to Christians it is the fulfillment of that thought rather than a departure from it.

All are welcome to join. The purchase of the books is not required but may be purchased online from Amazon or Barnes and Noble and other booksellers. Rabbi Saks’ book sells for about $20.00 on Amazon and Professor Fox’s book is available in both paperback and hardback new and used. On Amazon the paperback runs about $32.00 new and the hardback $75.00 new, with used copies available at much lower prices.

If you are interested or need further information please contact Paul Nicholson by email at paul.nicholson@att.net or just drop by on Thursday morning for covenant and conversation and of course coffee or tea.

For most of my adult life, particularly my married life, I have fought a battle each year starting with the first Sunday of Advent. I have tried mightily to maintain a “Holy Advent” which involved prayer, worship, and contemplation and which excluded shopping for presents, decorating, and cooking.

My concept of what constitutes the holy in a Holy Advent mirrored the definition of the holy as expressed in a book by Rudolph Otto a German Lutheran theologian . Otto defines the holy using the maxim mysterium tremendum et fascinans, or a sense of being in the presence of something vast and awe inspiring.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks in his book Exodus:The Book of Redemption which is a part of his Covenant and Conversation series further refines the definition with the concept of Tzimtzum, or divine “contraction” or “self-effacement”. Sacks takes this concept from the school of mysticism associated with Lurianic Kabbala. Tzimtzum posits that “there is a contradiction” between the infinite and the finite and since God is infinite and everywhere how then can anything else exist. God, and that which is not God, cannot occupy the same space so to engage in the act of creation God had to “contract”. Thus, you cannot love God and mammon. So, mammon’s got to go or at least be held at bay for a time.

Reconciliation

These rabbi’s and theologians present a complicated explanation which is heady stuff for us laymen but simply put: in my mind a “holy” advent could only involve prayer, contemplation and worship. Shopping for presents, parties, decorating and baking simply had to be put off until the actual Feast of the Nativity arrived on Christmas Eve. But to have the Christmas celebration in all its elements one has to “prepare” which involves shopping, decorating, and baking. But a recently I have become convinced that there is something to the argument made by Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits who thinks that the word holy refers to God’s involvement with humanity not his transcendence or mystery.

Expectedly every year I have found myself loosing this battle to preserve a commercial free Advent. The world of commerce starts Commericalmas the day after Thanksgiving with the feast day of Black Friday and unremittingly continued to celebrate until the day after Christmas when – poof – preparations for Valentines day started in earnest. No Christmastide, no Epiphany, just on to the next sale.

But my encounter yesterday leads me to the conclusion that both Otto and Berkovitz can be right. I am a big fan of Icons, the type that the Orthodox make in copious quantities and for which there is one for almost every feast day and event in the Christian calendar. As my wife and I were preparing to leave on a shopping trip she asked me if there was something special I would like for Christmas. And at that moment a vision of an icon depicting the nativity popped into my head and, as luck would have it, there was a quaint little shop selling such things located near our original shopping destination.

So, on our way to buy gifts, we visited the small shop here in Columbia called “The Unexpected Joy” which is commonly referred to as the “orthodox shop”. It is run by a very kind and knowledgeable man named John who I believe is the member of an Orthodox order. As we entered the shop John immediately greeted us in recognition as in the past I have been known to purchase great quantities of incense from him and he remembered me. After a little catching up I asked him if he had a “nativity icon” “Of course I do” he responded and he guided me to the one by Rublev pictured above. I had wanted a certain size to match the Trinity Icon of Rublev’s which I already have at home but that size was not available and I settled on a smaller version. And as I was “proceeding to checkout” and as if guided by an invisible hand, my eye caught the sight of an icon of Saint Nicholas in the same size. It took all of two seconds to realize that Nicholas was the perfect companion to the Nativity icon and simply must also be had. So both were purchased.

The Victory

The important part, however, was what happened next. John began telling me that the shop was celebrating its twenty fifth anniversary. Each year a ‘Blessing” ceremony is held and and a priest comes complete with holy water and incense and blesses the shop for another year. All of the shop keepers in the area, regardless of their denominational persuasion, attend because as John put it they see the shop as radiating a spiritual force throughout the area. John cordially invited Jana and I to come which we very much plan to do.

As we left the shop I felt cleansed, refreshed, and ready to once again face the forces of that “which is other than God” in the knowledge of the mystery that God is in all things and with us in all we do. The irony is that a selfish commercial transaction had opened a window and pushed aside that which is not God for a while allowing us to experience him more fully.

So, even in the midst of Commercalmas we can find sanctification and the way leading to a deeper experience of God in our lives. So from now on I will be viewing Advent differently.

Well, the real Feast of the Nativity will be here soon: may you have a Holy Advent and a Happy Christmas!

Notes:

Icons: (1) The Nativity by Rublev,, St. Andrei located in the Cathedral of the Annunciation, Moscow, 15th c. (2) Saint Nicholas, N. Lionda, Greek School 20th c.

“My parents named me Alban, and I worship the living and true God, who created all things.” Today we remember and venerate Saint Alban who in the words of Lesser Feasts and Fasts was the “earliest Christian in Britain who is known by name and according to tradition the first British martyr. Alban was a roman soldier who gave shelter to a Christian priest fleeing persecution and who in the process became converted to the Christian faith. When the Roman officers came to Alban’s house looking for the priest he dressed himself as the priest and have himself up. He was tortured, tried and executed. Tradition has it his execution took place on the hilltop where the cathedral of Saint Alban’s now stands outside of the city of Saint Albans England.

One is given to wonder how one would react given the same situation. Would we be willing, in this modern age, to give up our lives to save someone else, especially a complete stranger? Dying to protect friends and family is one thing but dying to protect a stranger because he, or she, is an embodiment of the faith is something else again.

In the lesson from the second chapter of Romans appointed for today Saint Paul makes the point that “he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision external and physical. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal” At the time he was speaking Christianity was a part of Judaism and the measure was how Jewish are you which is why he uses that phraseology. But taken today we can make the same measurement as to one’s Christianity not as how faithful one is to the law but rather how faithful is one to Christ.

Like Saint Alban we all face the test from time to time of how much to risk for our faith. Saint Alban rose to the challenge and was willing to give his life in faith. Could we do the same?

Here is the latest Supreme Court decision concerning the breakaway group in The Episcopal Church in South Carolina. The following press release was curated by The Episcopal Church in South Carolina.

“As we have throughout this legal journey, we are called to continue in prayer for all are affected in anyway by this decision. Regardless of legal questions, let us keep our hearts and minds focused on next steps that heal, that restore, that forgive, and that seek forgiveness,” The Right Rev. W Andrew Waldo urges

US Supreme Court Denies Certiorari, will not hear church property case

The United States Supreme Court today denied a petition from a breakaway group, letting stand the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court to return control of the Diocese of South Carolina and 28 church properties to The Episcopal Church and its recognized diocese, The Episcopal Church in South Carolina (TECSC).

The high court denied certiorari to the group that announced in 2012 they were leaving The Episcopal Church. The breakaway group filed a lawsuit in 2013 seeking to control diocesan and parish properties, and a Dorchester County court found in their favor in 2015. The state Supreme Court overturned that decision in August 2017.

“We are grateful for the clarity that this decision offers, and hopeful that it brings all of us closer to having real conversations on how we can bring healing and reconciliation to the Church, the Body of Christ, in this part of South Carolina,” said the Right Rev. Gladstone B. Adams III, Bishop of TECSC.

“Our path continues to be one of reconciliation and love, for love is the way of Jesus,” Bishop Adams said.

Today’s decision does not cause an immediate change in the physical control of the properties, according to Thomas S. Tisdale Jr., Chancellor of TECSC. It is now up to the state’s 1st Circuit Court of Common Pleas to execute the lower court’s decision.

TECSC and The Episcopal Church on May 8 asked the state court to place diocesan property and assets under control of TECSC’s trustees, hand over ownership of property of the 28 affected parishes to The Episcopal Church and TECSC, and appoint a Special Master to oversee the transition.

The Episcopal Church has been hoping to engage with leaders of the breakaway group since the state Supreme Court ruling in August. Bishop Adams and other diocesan leaders have been seeking direct contact with people in the affected parishes, offering a “Frequently Asked Questions” publication and arranging individual meetings to work with those who want to remain in their home churches as Episcopalians.

Direct talks are even more important now that the Supreme Court has ruled, the Bishop said. “We invite people in each of the parishes affected by this decision to read the FAQ document and get in touch with me directly, so we can discover how best to work together for the good of the parish, the diocese and the whole Church,” Bishop Adams said.

“It happens that today is the day we remember St. Barnabas, and in the prayer assigned for today we note that he sought not his own renown, but the well-being of God’s Church. May we do the same.”

A meeting of diocesan leaders, including the Standing Committee, Diocesan Council, Trustees, and Deans, has been called for Tuesday, June 12. The ordained and lay leaders will gather for prayer, hear information and discuss plans for the months ahead.

Bishop Adams expressed gratitude to those within the diocese and throughout the wider Episcopal Church who have offered prayers and support through the last 5-1/2 years. “Many people have labored faithfully and sacrificed much to remain steadfast in solidarity with us as we seek to be disciples of Jesus in this place. For every one of you, I give thanks,” he said.

Andrew Marr, OSB is Abbot of Saint Gregory’s Monastery located near Three Rivers, Michigan. In this piece his approach to the Feast of the Trinity is primarily scriptural utilizing the story told in Chapter 3 of the Gospel of John. He brings home the fact that Christianity is a story of salvation before it is a set of doctrines.

The Trinity is a fundamental doctrine for Christianity but Christianity is a story of salvation before it is a set of doctrines. The Trinity is no exception. If we get the story right, we might get the doctrine right, but if we get the story wrong, then we get the doctrine wrong for sure.

John 3 tell of Nicodemus coming to see Jesus at night, suggesting he is in the dark. Jesus’ words to Nicodemus: “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above,” (Jn. 3:3) don’t seem to follow from what Nicodemus had just said. It sounds like the answer to a question that was not asked. Is there an implied question to what Nicodemus did say? The only implied question I can pick up is: “How do I do the signs that you do?” If so, Jesus is saying…